"I'm not going to sign anybody for the sake of it"

[LeningradCowboy]

Not forgetting Bobby Reid? I think Warnock will also bring in two loans like last season, hopefully a Top Striker and midfielder with an option to buy if they do well! Why didn’t we do that with Victor and Arter last season?

Because they wouldn't have come here if we tried that.

[goats]

Not forgetting Bobby Reid? I think Warnock will also bring in two loans like last season, hopefully a Top Striker and midfielder with an option to buy if they do well! Why didn’t we do that with Victor and Arter last season?

Didn’t he get 25 goals the last time he played a season in the championship? Surely Murphy got a few too....

[Cyclops]

I'm going to repeat something I remember (prolly imperfectly) reading (again) that Murphy and Reid were signed with a view to Cardiff being back in the Championship. They were young yet proven. Time will tell if this was a master stroke. And while it seems different, they both played in 27 games or more in the Premiership last season - a good hardening process. That they are still around is testament that the management team is still backing them - and they have bought into the bigger scheme of things.

If this is true, it gives an insight into the thinking of City management and explains many decisions such as the lack of investment last season. In a nutshell, City expected to be relegated - even planned for it. That they were so close to staying up in the Land of Milk and Honey was a bonus - and caught them out. They were possibly one signing from staying in the Premiership - which is actually quite remarkable.

If City make two further decent signings, it could be argued that we are stronger than a couple of seasons ago - and the long-term management plan is intact.

Alternatively, this could all be bollocks.

[ToTaL ITK]

I'm going to repeat something I remember (prolly imperfectly) reading (again) that Murphy and Reid were signed with a view to Cardiff being back in the Championship. They were young yet proven. Time will tell if this was a master stroke. And while it seems different, they both played in 27 games or more in the Premiership last season - a good hardening process. That they are still around is testament that the management team is still backing them - and they have bought into the bigger scheme of things.

If this is true, it gives an insight into the thinking of City management and explains many decisions such as the lack of investment last season. In a nutshell, City expected to be relegated - even planned for it. That they were so close to staying up in the Land of Milk and Honey was a bonus - and caught them out. They were possibly one signing from staying in the Premiership - which is actually quite remarkable.

If City make two further decent signings, it could be argued that we are stronger than a couple of seasons ago - and the long-term management plan is intact.

Alternatively, this could all be bollocks.

agree with this..that one signing for me was the player that never played :(

[celticknight]

Last summer it did look like we were signing a Championship All-Star's XI in preparation for a Premier League campaign, especially when we signed Greg Cunningham.

We'll see if it works out.

[Bald Barry Bastad]

I'm going to repeat something I remember (prolly imperfectly) reading (again) that Murphy and Reid were signed with a view to Cardiff being back in the Championship. They were young yet proven. Time will tell if this was a master stroke. And while it seems different, they both played in 27 games or more in the Premiership last season - a good hardening process. That they are still around is testament that the management team is still backing them - and they have bought into the bigger scheme of things.

If this is true, it gives an insight into the thinking of City management and explains many decisions such as the lack of investment last season. In a nutshell, City expected to be relegated - even planned for it. That they were so close to staying up in the Land of Milk and Honey was a bonus - and caught them out. They were possibly one signing from staying in the Premiership - which is actually quite remarkable.

If City make two further decent signings, it could be argued that we are stronger than a couple of seasons ago - and the long-term management plan is intact.

Alternatively, this could all be bollocks.

I don't buy it. What's the long-term plan? To go up to the premier League and come straight back down again?

[Pedro de la Rosa]

I'm going to repeat something I remember (prolly imperfectly) reading (again) that Murphy and Reid were signed with a view to Cardiff being back in the Championship. They were young yet proven. Time will tell if this was a master stroke. And while it seems different, they both played in 27 games or more in the Premiership last season - a good hardening process. That they are still around is testament that the management team is still backing them - and they have bought into the bigger scheme of things.

If this is true, it gives an insight into the thinking of City management and explains many decisions such as the lack of investment last season. In a nutshell, City expected to be relegated - even planned for it. That they were so close to staying up in the Land of Milk and Honey was a bonus - and caught them out. They were possibly one signing from staying in the Premiership - which is actually quite remarkable.

If City make two further decent signings, it could be argued that we are stronger than a couple of seasons ago - and the long-term management plan is intact.

Alternatively, this could all be bollocks.

It's bollocks. Clubs should expect to go down, and should plan for it but that team came bloody close to staying up. To say going up to come down was the plan isn't true. There's 0 chance Warnock would have stayed if that was the case as well.

[Cyclops]

It's bollocks. Clubs should expect to go down, and should plan for it but that team came bloody close to staying up. To say going up to come down was the plan isn't true. There's 0 chance Warnock would have stayed if that was the case as well.

Not even with the prospect of yet another promotion notched up?
And I can think of examples of clubs who appear to endorse bounces between the PL and the Ch because a season fighting for promotion meant high gates and loads of interest.
If the club (ie Tan) really wanted to consolidate in the PL, far more money would have been invested - especially bearing in mind what was recouped from TV money and increased gates. His decision to limit spending made no business sense whatsoever - even given what happened with Malky (altho I think Malky would have kept us up with that squad).

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Not even with the prospect of yet another promotion notched up?
And I can think of examples of clubs who appear to endorse bounces between the PL and the Ch because a season fighting for promotion meant high gates and loads of interest.
If the club (ie Tan) really wanted to consolidate in the PL, far more money would have been invested - especially bearing in mind what was recouped from TV money and increased gates. His decision to limit spending made no business sense whatsoever - even given what happened with Malky (altho I think Malky would have kept us up with that squad).

No because he wouldn't waste his time here and would go elsewhere.

Reid and Murphy are good players who should kick on. We didn't do a Fulham (because that worked out well). We signed players for sensible money that we thought could make the step up. We didn't mortgage our future like other promoted clubs have done. They'll know how hard it is to get back on an even keel after a relegation so they didn't want to risk that happening in the future. If they wanted to bounce back, they wouldn't have spent it January.

[lardy]

Not even with the prospect of yet another promotion notched up?
And I can think of examples of clubs who appear to endorse bounces between the PL and the Ch because a season fighting for promotion meant high gates and loads of interest.
If the club (ie Tan) really wanted to consolidate in the PL, far more money would have been invested - especially bearing in mind what was recouped from TV money and increased gates. His decision to limit spending made no business sense whatsoever - even given what happened with Malky (altho I think Malky would have kept us up with that squad).

Actually, limiting spending made sense from the business side. Investing more probably doesn't shift your odds of survival that much. We've seen big spending teams go down and shoestring teams survive.

A businessman would look at it and think - if I spend more, will we still get relegated? Possibly. If I don't spend, will we stay up? Possibly. If I want to be very sure we stay up (as there is a broad link between wages and league position), is it worth that immediate immense investment? Probably not.

There were a few key games we needed to win in the run-in to survive (one that we did, Brighton, one that we lost, Fulham, and some others) and the difference wasn't a signing or two, it was the tactics and approach to the games.

[Moodybluebird]

Excellent post Lardy, spot on.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Actually, limiting spending made sense from the business side. Investing more probably doesn't shift your odds of survival that much. We've seen big spending teams go down and shoestring teams survive.

A businessman would look at it and think - if I spend more, will we still get relegated? Possibly. If I don't spend, will we stay up? Possibly. If I want to be very sure we stay up (as there is a broad link between wages and league position), is it worth that immediate immense investment? Probably not.

There were a few key games we needed to win in the run-in to survive (one that we did, Brighton, one that we lost, Fulham, and some others) and the difference wasn't a signing or two, it was the tactics and approach to the games.

We did well, and then Tan rolled the dice in January on Sala. It's really hard to put any words to that without sounding insensitive but he could well have been the difference.

[lardy]

We did well, and then Tan rolled the dice in January on Sala. It's really hard to put any words to that without sounding insensitive but he could well have been the difference.

He could have been and we'll never know. But that's sort of my point.

Cyclops said he was looking at it from a business sense, and I was too. If you invest £15m in a new outlet then you've done your market research and you're pretty sure it'll make you money. If you invest £15m in a striker, you don't know if you're getting Chopra or Cornelius. The variables are harder to control.

We can agree or disagree with the club's transfer dealings but it can definitely be defended from a business sense.

[life on mars]

What a load of crap,and you spelt colour incorrect.

I m guessing everyone saw the excellent build up and goal on Saturday

[Cyclops]

Actually, limiting spending made sense from the business side. Investing more probably doesn't shift your odds of survival that much. We've seen big spending teams go down and shoestring teams survive.

A businessman would look at it and think - if I spend more, will we still get relegated? Possibly. If I don't spend, will we stay up? Possibly. If I want to be very sure we stay up (as there is a broad link between wages and league position), is it worth that immediate immense investment? Probably not.
.

Lets take an example. When we invest as private individuals, we generally have to define our attitude towards risk. At the bottom of the scale is little/no risk which brings minimal returns, though a safe investment. Then we go up the scale, until we are prepared to take a high risk for high gains.

Your model of 'possibles' is near the bottom of the risk scale. We missed staying up by a whisker - maybe by a goal or two. With the minimum prospect of riches of hundreds of millions from just a couple of seasons in the PL (from TV money and sell-out crowds), surely an extra spend of £20-30m is not such a big risk spend. For every example of spend=fail, an example of spend wisely=consolidation can be produced.

As I've said before, it makes little business sense for Tan to start spending now to try to achieve the promotion which had already been attained.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Lets take an example. When we invest as private individuals, we generally have to define our attitude towards risk. At the bottom of the scale is little/no risk which brings minimal returns, though a safe investment. Then we go up the scale, until we are prepared to take a high risk for high gains.

Your model of 'possibles' is near the bottom of the risk scale. We missed staying up by a whisker - maybe by a goal or two. With the minimum prospect of riches of hundreds of millions from just a couple of seasons in the PL (from TV money and sell-out crowds), surely an extra spend of £20-30m is not such a big risk spend. For every example of spend=fail, an example of spend wisely=consolidation can be produced.

As I've said before, it makes little business sense for Tan to start spending now to try to achieve the promotion which had already been attained.

We did spend that money on a striker though. We all know what happened and he never arrived but the club spent it.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

We did spend that money on a striker though. We all know what happened and he never arrived but the club spent it.

Having got promotion and not investing in a striker at the start of the season was the big pity.

[Cyclops]

Having got promotion and not investing in a striker at the start of the season was the big pity.

Succinct, pithy and spot-on!

Why can't half the forum's posters see this?

[lardy]

Lets take an example. When we invest as private individuals, we generally have to define our attitude towards risk. At the bottom of the scale is little/no risk which brings minimal returns, though a safe investment. Then we go up the scale, until we are prepared to take a high risk for high gains.

Your model of 'possibles' is near the bottom of the risk scale. We missed staying up by a whisker - maybe by a goal or two. With the minimum prospect of riches of hundreds of millions from just a couple of seasons in the PL (from TV money and sell-out crowds), surely an extra spend of £20-30m is not such a big risk spend. For every example of spend=fail, an example of spend wisely=consolidation can be produced.

As I've said before, it makes little business sense for Tan to start spending now to try to achieve the promotion which had already been attained.

Yeah it's only £20-30m, which club ever got into trouble for that piffling amount?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Succinct, pithy and spot-on!

Why can't half the forum's posters see this?

Are you taking the pith?

[Cyclops]

Yeah it's only £20-30m, which club ever got into trouble for that piffling amount?

Well, I'm a very cautious, conservative investor and I'd have willingly spent £20/30m of Tan's money on a couple of players - and not lost a wink of sleep.

[Cyclops]

Are you taking the pith?

Reminds me of that old doc's joke:

Doc: "Big breaths!"
Patient: "Yeth - and I'm only Thithteen".

[xsnaggle]

Succinct, pithy and spot-on!

Why can't half the forum's posters see this?

Perhaps they're a bit one eyed!!!!

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Yeah it's only £20-30m, which club ever got into trouble for that piffling amount?

There's a risk in spending too much, and equally in spending too little. Clubs like Norwich, Watford, Bournemouth, who seem to know their way around the transfer markets can get away with spending less than the likes if City, who at times seem like they haven't got a clue. I think VT trusts Warnock's football judgement implicitly - and rightly so. I just think he doesn't trust him, nor Dalman or Choo in spending relatively large sums on players...

[Cyclops]

Perhaps they're a bit one eyed!!!!

Reported - for malicious and callous trolling of my hard-to-bear physical affliction